Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Republican candidate for the presidency stated if the people of Paris had been armed, the devastation would not have occurred.
Now let's take a realistic look at what happened in Paris, and see if armed citizens could have made things turn out differently.
You are sitting in a restaurant in Paris, with friends, enjoying some fine French wine with dinner.
Suddenly shots are fired through the window.
Your first thought would be to duck and take cover, not reach for a gun that you may be carrying.
In the time it would take to duck, and then retrieve your weapon, many could be shot dead.
I am not saying you would not perhaps be successful at killing one of the intruders, but it is highly doubtful you would even get the opportunity to use your weapon, because you would be hell bent on searching for adequate cover.
So arming the citizens in this particular situation would not have been successful.
It is the element is surprise-- you have to be a TV cop --to react that fast -- only in the movies-- now running away from the scene? maybe ? at night?? maybe if up 10 ft up from the screaming frantic crowd.
I think you would need a much higher percentage of the population to be armed then what even the US has. But I also think it might have helped.
I don't. Imagine if the majority of the population had guns and everybody started shooting in the midst of all of that chaos. I can't see how that would have resulted in anything good.
I think there is some merit to what he said, but having guns wouldn't have stopped everyone from being hurt or killed. What he said that really applies in this case is a border wall and to really know who is coming in.
In the concert hall, in all the chaos, if someone had been armed maybe someone could have taken one of the gunmen out. They can't have their eyes on everyone at once.
Consider this: A while back another band had an active shooter who fired at a very crowded concert. In that case the band itself was shot and at least one member killed. I recall that someone there was armed. It may have been a security guard. Nonetheless the shooter was shot and taken down quickly, with many less casualties than would have been otherwise.
Could the same be said of the Paris attack? No one knows. Over here, someone with a gun wouldn't have been far away and at least could have attempted to kill one of the shooters. In fact, if I was someone who carried a weapon, I would consider some training for a situation just for an active shooter. They teach home invasion gun courses, so why not this scenario.
We have how many people in the world? Need to unite our allies, and set up one mega task force to completely eradicate them all- each country do what the Germans did-- pull them out of their beds- share all intel- grab and ask question later. It's sad it has to come to that- but if you really want to do this- need to get serious $$ -- this is not a wall of soldiers declaring war in some valley. I see we teach our boys to be defensive,, where are the other men of the world? As I said-- all those refugees- take the men -arm them- and send them back to regain their country! this is not Hitler- but it is not a impossible to put it to rest
The Republican candidate for the presidency stated if the people of Paris had been armed, the devastation would not have occurred.
Now let's take a realistic look at what happened in Paris, and see if armed citizens could have made things turn out differently.
You are sitting in a restaurant in Paris, with friends, enjoying some fine French wine with dinner.
Suddenly shots are fired through the window.
Your first thought would be to duck and take cover, not reach for a gun that you may be carrying.
In the time it would take to duck, and then retrieve your weapon, many could be shot dead.
I am not saying you would not perhaps be successful at killing one of the intruders, but it is highly doubtful you would even get the opportunity to use your weapon, because you would be hell bent on searching for adequate cover.
So arming the citizens in this particular situation would not have been successful.
Bob.
From eyewitness accounts I heard on the news, the terrorists moved calmly and slowly. They knew they could just pick people off at their leisure. If they thought people were armed.. like if they tried this in a city in Texas for example, you can bet that they would be more cautious and maybe killed less people since they'd be playing defense as well as offense. Then if someone gets some shots off, THEY'D have to find cover.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
